市场支配推定在中国民事诉讼中的作用

Félix E. Mezzanotte, Liyang Hou
{"title":"市场支配推定在中国民事诉讼中的作用","authors":"Félix E. Mezzanotte, Liyang Hou","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2557249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We examine the use and effects of the presumptions of market dominance in antitrust litigation in China (Article 19 Antimonopoly Law). To this end, thirteen court decisions in cases of abuse of market dominance were analyzed. We found that the presumptions are mentioned in eight cases. The presence of the presumptions, however, did not influence the court’s rationale and findings in a meaningful way. In those cases in which the presumptions are cited and market dominance found (three cases), the court’s views were guided less by the logic underlying the presumptions than by the fact that the defendants held a monopoly position due to patent holdings or exclusive rights. In the other five cases that cite the presumptions, the defendants operated in a competitive market and dominance was not found. Here, the plaintiffs systematically failed to satisfy the requirements of the presumption due to problems of market definition and measurement of market shares. In terms of effects, the possibility that the presumptions connote a shift in the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant remains unclear, and further guidance from the Chinese courts on this issue is critical.","PeriodicalId":356075,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Law eJournal","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Role of Presumptions of Market Dominance in Civil Litigation in China\",\"authors\":\"Félix E. Mezzanotte, Liyang Hou\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2557249\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We examine the use and effects of the presumptions of market dominance in antitrust litigation in China (Article 19 Antimonopoly Law). To this end, thirteen court decisions in cases of abuse of market dominance were analyzed. We found that the presumptions are mentioned in eight cases. The presence of the presumptions, however, did not influence the court’s rationale and findings in a meaningful way. In those cases in which the presumptions are cited and market dominance found (three cases), the court’s views were guided less by the logic underlying the presumptions than by the fact that the defendants held a monopoly position due to patent holdings or exclusive rights. In the other five cases that cite the presumptions, the defendants operated in a competitive market and dominance was not found. Here, the plaintiffs systematically failed to satisfy the requirements of the presumption due to problems of market definition and measurement of market shares. In terms of effects, the possibility that the presumptions connote a shift in the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant remains unclear, and further guidance from the Chinese courts on this issue is critical.\",\"PeriodicalId\":356075,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2557249\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2557249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

我们考察了市场支配假设在中国反垄断诉讼中的运用及其效果(《反垄断法》第19条)。为此,本文分析了13起滥用市场支配地位案件的法院判决。我们发现在8个案例中提到了这些假设。然而,假设的存在并没有以有意义的方式影响法院的理由和调查结果。在那些引用假设并发现市场支配地位的案例中(三个案例),法院的观点较少受到假设背后逻辑的引导,而是受到被告因持有专利或专有权而拥有垄断地位这一事实的引导。在引用上述假设的其他5起案件中,被告在竞争市场中经营,并未发现其占主导地位。本案中,由于市场定义和市场份额计量存在问题,原告系统性地未能满足推定的要求。就效力而言,这些推定是否意味着举证责任从原告转移到被告的可能性尚不清楚,中国法院在这一问题上的进一步指导至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Role of Presumptions of Market Dominance in Civil Litigation in China
We examine the use and effects of the presumptions of market dominance in antitrust litigation in China (Article 19 Antimonopoly Law). To this end, thirteen court decisions in cases of abuse of market dominance were analyzed. We found that the presumptions are mentioned in eight cases. The presence of the presumptions, however, did not influence the court’s rationale and findings in a meaningful way. In those cases in which the presumptions are cited and market dominance found (three cases), the court’s views were guided less by the logic underlying the presumptions than by the fact that the defendants held a monopoly position due to patent holdings or exclusive rights. In the other five cases that cite the presumptions, the defendants operated in a competitive market and dominance was not found. Here, the plaintiffs systematically failed to satisfy the requirements of the presumption due to problems of market definition and measurement of market shares. In terms of effects, the possibility that the presumptions connote a shift in the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendant remains unclear, and further guidance from the Chinese courts on this issue is critical.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信